What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5439481 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy arrangement is a flat-sharing arrangement.

How much money was awarded in case 5439481?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5439481?

The primary dispute was Boarding House.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5439481?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13569956-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5439481 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy arrangement is a flat-sharing arrangement.

How much money was awarded in case 5439481?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5439481?

The primary dispute was Boarding House.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5439481?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13569956-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

566 Mount Eden Road, Mount Eden, Auckland 1024 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5439481 — Boarding House

Order

The tenancy arrangement is a flat-sharing arrangement.
The application is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

Reasons

This hearing is to determine whether the Tenancy Tribunal has jurisdiction over the applicant’s claim.
The applicant, Ms Zhuang, attended in person with the assistance of a Mandarin interpreter, Mr Zhang.
The respondent, Ms Guo, did not attend the hearing. No application for an adjournment was made and no explanation for the non-attendance was provided. Given the applicant was present and ready to proceed, I decided to continue in the respondent’s absence.
The sole issue for determination is whether the arrangement between the parties was a residential tenancy under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“the Act”), or whether it was properly characterised as a flat-sharing arrangement falling outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.
The applicant must establish, on a prima facie basis, that the Tribunal has jurisdiction.
If jurisdiction is established prima facie, the burden then falls on the party asserting that the Act does not apply to establish that proposition on the balance of probabilities. See section 10 of the Act. Background
The property is a single-level dwelling containing five bedrooms, two bathrooms, one kitchen, one laundry, and a covered carport area used for drying clothes.
The applicant entered into an agreement dated 13 July 2025 and vacated the property on 3 February 2026.
Although the written agreement referred to Ms Guo as the head tenant, the applicant’s evidence was that all negotiations, management decisions, rent payments, and bond payments were dealt with through Ms Ma (also known as “Sherry Ma”). Rent and bond were paid directly into Ms Ma’s New Zealand bank account.
Ms Ma did not reside at the property. The applicant said Ms Ma lived in Singapore and that all communication occurred through social media. The applicant said the property was registered under Ms Ma’s name.
During the relevant period, the occupants of the property were: a. Ms Ma’s parents‑in‑law. b. The applicant and her son; and c. An international student.
The living arrangements were as follows: a. Ms Ma’s parents-in-law occupied two bedrooms on one side of the house; b. one of those bedrooms contained an ensuite bathroom used exclusively by them; c. the applicant and her son each occupied separate bedrooms; d. the international student occupied another bedroom; e. the applicant, her son, and the international student shared the remaining bathroom; f. the kitchen, laundry facilities and outdoor garden were shared by all occupants; g. all occupants entered the house through the same entrance and hallway; h. there was no separate lounge or self-contained living area for the applicant’s exclusive use; i. Ms Ma’s parents‑in‑law and the applicant kept kitchen utensils, consumables, and dining furniture separate; j. each bedroom was separately lockable and occupants had keys to both the main entrance and their individual rooms.
The applicant emphasised that Ms Ma exercised overall control of the property remotely. The applicant said day-to-day decisions, including matters relating to electricity use and bond refund arrangements, required Ms Ma’s approval.

Does the Residential Tenancies Act Apply?

Section 2 of the Act defines a tenancy broadly as the right to occupy residential premises, whether exclusively or otherwise, in exchange for rent.
Section 4 provides that the Act applies to tenancies for residential purposes unless specifically excluded.
The question is not determined solely by the label attached to the agreement. The Tribunal must examine the true nature and substance of the arrangement.
The learned Adjudicator M Pollak, in [The applicants] v Thi Thuy Tien Tran [2026] NZTT 5348738, 5369162 (6 March 2026), helpfully set out the relevant law in detail at paragraphs 24 to 40.
“The Tenancy Tribunal deals predominantly with household units (with the exception of boarding houses).
The question of whether a premises is a separate household unit arose in the recent High Court decision Harding v Schellevis, Tan and Caroto [2021] NZHC 1265.
In that case, the landlord entered into a “flatmate/house-sharing agreement” with the tenants, which expressly recorded an acknowledgement that the premises were the primary residence of the landlord’s family and that therefore the Act did not apply (see section 5(1)(n) of the RTA exclusion).
However, the [City] Council previously confirmed to the landlord that the premises could not be tenanted as a separate household unit (e.g., no fire rated walls etc).
Analysing the actual situation, the Tribunal determined that the RTA did apply and that the building consisted of two separate and distinct household units.
The landlord appealed that finding to the District Court, which confirmed the Tribunal’s finding, and dismissed the landlord’s appeal.
The landlord then appealed to the High Court and the High Court confirmed both the District Court and Tribunal’s decision. Justice Walker in the High Court determined that: a. the natural and ordinary meaning of “premises” contemplates that there could be more than one “premises” within a larger premises; b. residential premises can include part of any premises used or intended for occupation as a place of residence; c. the Act supports a generous approach to jurisdiction for the Tribunal and conversely a strict approach to exceptions; d. the tenants did not have a right to occupy the areas used by the landlord, and there were no shared or common areas that would normally characterise a flat share. There was also no ability for the parties to enter the other parties dwelling, other than with consent.
Justice Walker concluded: “In my view, the decisive factor in this case must be the self- contained character of the granny flat, its exclusive use by the respondent occupiers and the exclusive use of the rest of the dwelling by the appellant and her family. There were no communal living or shared spaces but two separate and distinct household units within the dwelling. In these circumstances, the term “premises” cannot be interpreted as referring to the property in its entirety. The relevant premises is instead the functionally independent granny flat. That was not principally a place of residence of the appellant. It was solely occupied by the respondent. Section 5(1)(n) of the Act does not apply.”
The self-contained nature of the granny flat was decisive in Harding v Shellevis. However, even where there is some shared use of facilities, such as a toilet or shower, the RTA may still apply to a largely self- contained dwelling. This is because a tenancy agreement can include facilities provided for the non-exclusive use of the tenant. A couple of older Tribunal authorities illustrate this principle.
In Whitelock v McConway (Tenancy Tribunal Blenheim, 13 July 1995) the tenant occupied a sleepout a couple of meters from the main home occupied by the landlord. This comprised a bedroom, shower, toilet, and wash house attached to the garage. The tenant used a shared kitchen to prepare his breakfast and lunch.
Evening meals were mainly provided by the landlord. The landlord regarded the tenant as a boarder with free access to the facilities in the home.
The tenant was sharing kitchen, bathroom and laundry facilities with the landlord.
The Tribunal held that the area occupied by the tenant was part of the family home, because it did not have separate cooking facilities and contained the only shower and laundry. The tenant’s room was part of the landlord’s home and was excluded from jurisdiction pursuant to section 5(1)(n) RTA.
In Barnett v Dempsey (Tenancy Tribunal Auckland, 13 June 2003, TT 790/03) the tenant lived in a room in a converted garage a few meters from house occupied by the landlord and her daughter. The tenant had a fridge and a cooktop. The tenant had to wash his dishes in the kitchen of the house. He had a key to gain access to the house to use the shower and toilet. The tenant only used the lounge in the house when invited to do so by the landlord.
The Tribunal held that, despite the sharing of facilities, the RTA was not excluded.
The tenant’s room comprised “premises” for the purpose of the RTA: “That the premises did not have their own toilet and washing facilities is not...fatal to their [sic] being “premises” because the definition of “facilities” in the Act appears to envisage a situation where other facilities are to be provided to the tenant by the landlord “for the use and enjoyment of the tenant, otherwise than as a part of the premises that are the subject of the agreement”, such as toilet and washing facilities...”.
These decisions were decided on their own facts. But they show that the Tribunal is sometimes required to assess whether the extent of shared facilities or spaces means the living arrangements are to be properly characterised as a tenancy, or as a flat share (or boarding) arrangement.”
In [The applicants] v Thi Thuy Tien Tran [2026] NZTT 5348738, 5369162, the learned Adjudicator M Pollak undertook a detailed analysis of whether an arrangement involving occupation of part of a residential property constituted a tenancy or merely a flatting or licence arrangement. The Tribunal emphasised that the correct approach is to examine the real nature of the arrangement, including the degree of independence of occupation, the existence of a separate dwelling, and whether rent is paid in exchange for the right to occupy.
The Tribunal in that decision noted that the Act expressly contemplates situations where occupation is not fully exclusive. The phrase “whether exclusively or otherwise” reflects Parliament’s intention that the Act apply broadly, including to arrangements that may not fit traditional notions of exclusive possession.
The earlier decision also confirmed that the absence of a written tenancy agreement is not determinative. What matters is whether, in substance, one party has granted another the right to occupy residential premises in exchange for rent.
In applying those principles, the Tribunal placed weight on factors including: a. the physical separation of the premises from other parts of the property; b. the ability of the occupier to live independently; c. the payment of rent; and d. the duration and stability of the arrangement.
The Tribunal concluded that, where those features are present, the arrangement is properly characterised as a residential tenancy, even if one party describes it as informal or as a flatting arrangement. Analysis and Conclusion
The property had multiple occupants, including Ms Ma’s relatives who lived on- site. There were shared essential facilities: a kitchen, laundry, and one bathroom for the applicant, her son, and the international student, as well as other common areas in the house, such as the hallway and the outdoor garden. The applicant did not have exclusive possession of the whole property.
While kitchen items and laundry products were kept separate, the core facilities remained shared. This reinforces, rather than negates, the flat‑sharing character of the arrangement.
In Harding v Schellevis, Tan and Caroto [2021] NZHC 1265, Justice Walker of the High Court confirmed that the Tribunal must consider whether the occupiers were living in a functionally independent household unit, or instead as part of a shared domestic household.
Justice Walker observed that the decisive feature in Harding was the existence of a “self-contained” and “functionally independent” granny flat occupied exclusively by the tenants. There were no communal living spaces and the occupiers did not share ordinary household living arrangements with the owners.
The present case is materially different.
Here, the evidence establishes that the occupants shared core domestic facilities, including the kitchen and laundry. Access throughout the dwelling occurred through common areas and hallways. There was no separate entrance, no exclusive living room, and no self-contained household unit occupied solely by the applicant and her son.
Although the occupants maintained separate kitchen utensils, dining furniture, and consumables, those matters do not convert the arrangement into separate residential premises. If anything, they are more consistent with the ordinary features of a flat-sharing arrangement within a shared household.
The applicant relied heavily on the fact that Ms Ma herself did not reside at the property and exercised management remotely from overseas. I accept that evidence. However, that factor is not determinative.
The issue is not whether the owner or manager physically resided at the property. The relevant question is whether the applicant occupied a distinct and functionally independent residential premises, or instead occupied a room within a shared household arrangement.
On the evidence before me, the applicant occupied a bedroom within a larger shared domestic arrangement involving common facilities and integrated household occupation.
The arrangement lacked the physical and functional independence seen in Harding. The premises occupied by the applicant were not separate residential premises capable of independent occupation as a household unit.
I also note the applicant did not have exclusive possession of any identifiable self-contained area beyond her bedroom. The essential facilities required for ordinary daily living remained shared with other occupants of the house (including her son).
Considering the arrangement as a whole, I am satisfied it is properly characterised as a flat-sharing arrangement rather than a tenancy to which the Act applies.
Accordingly, the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to determine the dispute.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5439481 — Boarding House at 566 Mount Eden Road, Mount Eden, Auckland 1024

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5439481 — Boarding House at 566 Mount Eden Road, Mount Eden, Auckland 1024

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Does the Residential Tenancies Act Apply?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Does the Residential Tenancies Act Apply?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions